As Linkin Park released their new album, Minutes To Midnight, a debate about re-invention arose in the KOAR camp. LP first hit in 2000 with the groundbreaking album Hybrid Theory. Although rap-rock was nothing new, they did it with a level of technical proficiency and originality the genre had never seen. By the time they released Meteora, they were established as a revolutionary band; one of the most creative and talented groups in mainstream rock. That was 4 years ago. Now, after going into the studio with Rick Rubin to ‘re-invent themselves,’ one can’t help but wonder why they’re fixing something that wasn’t broken.

The trouble that artists run into, especially those with a massive impact on pop culture, is that their sound is so closely associated with a time and place, staying true to what worked in the past may not work in the present or future. Artists in this position have 3 options: evolve, re-invent or call it a day. Of course, evolution is ideal. Fans who truly believe in an act want to know how much better the music can be when artists elaborate on what made them great and explore new corners of their potential previously unknown. Green Day, for example, surprised Dookie fans who thought they had a pop-punk formula by exploring anything and everything that tickled their musical fancy, even landing success with an acoustic ballad. Though their popularity waned temporarily over the years, they stuck to their guns and continued their evolution. The fans returned, bringing even more people with them, resulting in Green Day’s first #1 record in 2004. Green Day had the balls to redefine ‘3 chord punk’ and it paid off for them.

Linkin Park could have gone the way of Green Day, exploring what they’re really capable of and letting their musical curiosity lead them down a path of ingenuity, but they instead opted for re-invention. Madonna-style. Madonna has made her entire career on re-invention. The reason she is successful at it is because she operates in the pop world, where it’s here today and gone tomorrow. Constant change and endless marketing is crucial to achieving longevity for solo performers in the flash-in-the-pan world of Top 40. For most bands at that level, however, re-invention isn’t a realistic option. It can cheapen your past success and force you to lose relevance (e.g. Metallica).Â

The highly contested third option of ‘quitting‘ is not necessarily a bad thing. What’s wrong with stopping? It would be like if Clapton stuck with the Yardbirds or Peter Gabriel stayed in Genesis. Their individual legacy as musicians didn’t hinge on the success of one project, and it’s their collaborations with other great artists and involvment in a variety of projects that make their stories so rich and interesting. If Linkin Park never made another album after Meteora, would it have lessened their impact on rock music, or would it have been seen as going out on a high note? Would the individual members go on to create music with others that is just as important or even more so than what they made in Linkin Park? It’s never too late for that to happen, but is damage being done to the Linkin Park legacy by changing what the band is all about?

Evolution happens when natural musical instincts are followed down an unknown path. Re-invention is the conscious decision to change with a desired outcome in mind. Across the entirety of music, successful examples of both are plentiful, but the third option is not one to be overlooked. Ending one chapter allows a new one to begin. It’s evolution, but on the individual level rather than as a group. A group of creative people cannot be expected to travel down the same linear musical path indefinitely. There are twists and turns for every musician where numerous intersections and parallels should be allowed. Fear only stifles progress, so artists shouldn’t be afraid of where the unknown can take them.

AJ, KOAR